Admin

Dominica’s announced decision to sign on to ALBAâ€”the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americasâ€”has been the subject of some media comment because of its supposed undermining of Caricom. However, this is by no means the first time that a Caricom member state has acted in a way that might be at variance with its regional commitments and responsibilities….

Comments

7 Responses to “Dominica and ALBA, Norman Girvan”

Many thanks for your “Dominica and ALBA”. It makes a lot of sense, especially pointing out the numerous previous occasions when one country or the other (in CARICOM or Latin America) decided for their own national imperatives, (political or otherwise) decided to break ranks. I am interested in pursuing the discussion of the “CARICOM model” as mentioned by Cecilia below. I have always argued that the regional integration process as expressed through CARICOM does not and cannot appear attractive to the average Caribbean woman or man, precisely because it is driven primarily by market forces and/or commercial initiatives – in which the most vulnerable in the region operate only at the very margins. The majority of Caribbean
people exist on the margins of the wealth-creating institutions and of the political decision-making centres (elections every 5 years notwithstanding).

Since the CSM & E has to be, for the most part, WTO compliant, then the policy options for the governments are few – even if they had the vision to try and do things differently. Most have bought into the market model without real consideration of how, over the long term, there can be various interventions or initiatives which take advantage of any “spaces for manuovre” within the WTO model. I understand about WTO penalties etc, but I am not convinced that our leaders (political, most economists, and perhaps most of our negotiators) have pushed the envelope sufficiently WITH THE FULLEST INVOLVEMENT OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND HAVE NOT BEEN DRIVEN BY THE SECTORAL INTERESTS AND BIG BUSINESS PRIMARILY, whose interests of course have to be considered.

And, I certainly would not blame Dominica or any other OECS country who decided to take the step that PM Skerritt did – especially since there are elements within the CARICOM leadership who really continue to pay lip service to the genuine concerns of the OECS, being micro-economies which are even more vulnerable to external shocks etc, with fewer resources. Skerritt’s step should also be seen as an expression of his right, as Head of a sovereign country (whatever that means, or given the little sovereignty that really exists today for CARICOM countries generally) to take such decisions as benefit the long-term development of his country and people. Given his background and “social history” as explained below, I wouldn’t assume that his decision is just opportunistic and designed to gain popularity or impress voters. I think we should big him up!!

When he goes to COTED to seek a derogation, will they be able to tell him where alternative programmes or resources can be found to make up for those he would lose if he doesn’t pursue the ALBA process? I recognize the need for a unified CARICOM approach for various things, especially foreign policy, trade negotiations etc, but if these show little potential for bringing forward the critical resources needed what should he do? Wait on the CARICOM LDCs’ to come to the table with a “decent” offer? When will that happen, how long will that take? Suppose the OECS countries had been waiting on CARICOM to get their act together re a Central Bank, to start making moves towards harmonization of economic and exchange rate policy, wouldn’t they be much worse off now??

The concrete “development aid or development assistance” that OECS countries expect to receive either through ALBA (in the case of Dominica) or from Taiwan or the People’s Republic of China is being perceived as ” Cuba, Venezuela and China carrying the burden of helping the region to address its problems through specific programmes of assistance”–assistance which is not being provided by traditional Northern donor countries in ways which certain countries deem useful or acceptable. This is a quotation from a newspaper report on the Conference that was held in June 2007 with U.S. President Bush and CARICOM leaders – which indicated that a group of CARICOM heads led by Gonsalves told US officials this!! As expressed within DAWN, you can’t have “aid effectiveness without development effectiveness”.

It should be noted that five Caribbean countries recognize Taiwan and nine others have diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, this latter group includes the larger CARICOM countries of Jamaica, Barbados, and Trinidad and Tobago.

I am not quite sure that Dominica”™s joining ALBA is receiving more media attention and raising more regional concern than the Cariforum-EU EPA. But to the extent that such may be the case, I suspect that it could be due to the English-speaking Caribbean”™s age-old distrust toward anything Latin American ““ in this case: ALBA ““ and greater ease of accepting “˜things European”™ ““ such as the EPA. Perhaps it”™s a matter of preferring the enemy one knows (Europe) to the neighbor one doesn”™t know (Latin America). As Norman says, ” When will we ever learn?”

Thank you for these insightful and powerful comments. (Judith”™s follow-up refers, as you know, to an e-mail exchange we had regarding this, and comments which I had promised to share.) I think it is critical to draw attention, as you have done, to the double standards and (whether intended or not) hypocrisy inherent in the reaction to Dominica”™s ” unilateral” move to join ALBA.

As you point out, apart from all kinds of more noteworthy or notorious precedents, it is not as if this clashes in any fundamental legal way with CARICOM”™s jurisdictional compass, since commitment to ALBA does not appear to engage the same level of formal instrumentality (as far as we know). But, Judith is referring as well to some larger issues that we talked about. Beyond the issue of double standards, we have to question this tendency to demonize Chavez and his project, when the rationale of the project ““ to build alternatives to those links which continue to keep us dependent, powerless and easily exploitable ““ is something in which we do or should have a keen interest. We continue to pay lip service to this ideal before quickly moving on to business as usual and yielding to the so-called inevitability of neoliberal globalization.

Why do we shun Chavez when he is bold enough to go beyond the mouthing of platitudes to a plan of action? The occasion of Dominica joining ALBA should prompt, therefore, two larger discussions: Is it time to re-visit the question of an alternative model of trade and development once proposed by Caribbean leaders like Michael Manley ““ and indeed to go beyond Manley”™s tentative vision to something much more concrete and far-reaching? And second, is CARICOM”™s ” competition model” a route to regional independence and empowerment or merely a high-sounding name for quicker WTO compliance? How are poorer CARICOM countries like Dominica (or other OECS countries) expected to compete, with attention focused away from social capital and social infrastructure towards an exclusive preoccupation with marketization? And how are Caribbean governments (and CARICOM) addressing the problem of the ” democratic deficit” created by this exclusive commitment to the market model?

The statistic of 500 blind Dominicans having had their sight restored by the Cuban programme is not realistic*.

The prevalence of total blindness is estimated to be 0.6%. With a very generous estimate of our population of 70,000 (In reality may be in the 50 thousands) this should make our TOTAL count of ALL causes of blindness 420. Cataract accounts for 60%, however the cataract surgical rate in Dominica would have addressed about 50% of this. Glaucoma and diabetes irreversilble but preventable causes of blindness would account for 20%. In Dominica on the east coast of the island there is an irreversible cause of choroidal blindness of unknown cause and with no known treatment. This has resulted in blindness among a significant number of older persons in these communities. This with the other less common causes would account for the remaining 20%.

How then can Cuba have operated on 500 BLIND persons with cataracts and made them see? What I can tell you is that a number of these persons blind from these other causes have had their cataracts removed but they are still blind. The Cubans have not collected the appropriate data to give the true picture. Hence they are propagating erroneous but sensational statistics.

I have been the sole ophthalmologist working in Dominica from 1996 both in the public and the private sector. I run public eye clinics in every health district, the Dominica infirmary ( a home for the elderly) and the hospital. Cataract surgery is been performed weekly at a rate of 125-150 per year before the Cuban program to102-110 per year since the Cuban program started. Cataract surgery is not the only eye surgery performed.

I couldn’t agree more with the comments on Dominica and ALBA. The vulnerable situation of small Caribbean countries, especially Dominica with none of the white sand beaches that attract tourists, ought to be taken into consideration when they are judged on questions of regional solidarity. It is a great temptation for such countries to accept attractive offers of assistance from Taiwan in exchange for diplomatic recognition, especially when there seems to be little risk in doing so because of their tiny or non-existent trade with China. Similar offers/prospects of assistance encouraged both Dominica and Grenada to become members of the Francophone Community although such action might not have been considered problematic at the time.

On the general question of regional solidarity, I remember what great difficulty I had in persuading Caricom country delegations to act as a cohesive group at Unesco General Conferences even though there could be no real differences in policy between them on the relatively non-controversial subjects with which Unesco deals. They all wanted to do their own thing, despite the fact that, with their small delegations acting individually, they could not be represented at meetings of all the programme commissions, which met concurrently. Yet, I was never able to get them to agree to share out the programme commissions among the different Caribbean delegations, authorizing a single delegation to speak on behalf of the group, thus ensuring adequate coverage of every commission. It is something that the Scandinavian countries do on a regular basis, even when they have a sufficient number delegates to be able to fully participate in such meetings as individual member states. The Scandinavian countries discovered long ago that a statement in a debate, which is made on behalf of a group of countries, often has a greater impact on the debate than would individual national contributions. I am not at all surprised, therefore, that Caricom countries still refuse to consider joint diplomatic representation. If and when they decide to do so, the effectiveness, the influence, and the geographical scope of their diplomatic efforts would considerably increase, with consequent beneficial effects on their national and regional interests.

Nice to hear from some very precious friends (Judith, Cecilia, Norman and others) on this very important issue of what being Caribbean means in today’s world.

I add to the ALBA discussion the fact that from the late 1980′s I had the pleasure of working as a Member of the development group for Alternative Policies (D’Gap)with Judith, Norman and so many other Caribbean colleagues on forging a broad-based regional dialogue with members of the US Congress on alternatives to the then CBI (Caribbean Basin Initiative) proposed by Reagan in response to the Revolution on Grenada.

That exercise was revealing in many ways but none more so than in the fact that it proved possible to hold discussion on major policy issues with policymakers from the US Congress while most Caribbean Governments would not give their own citizens the “time of day”.

This latter position is still largely and lamentable, the case today even after we have all as States, signed on to Regional and international Agreements that enshrine decision-making dialogue as principle and practice for “sustainable development”. Remember, Agenda 21, The Barbados Plan of Action, the Inter-American Strategy for people’s Participation in Decision-making for Sustainable Development (ISP), The Grenada Declaration, and so many others?

Now to ALBA.

The discussions leading up to ALBA were the initiatives of civil society groups from throughout the Hemisphere. We picked up on the principles of all these Regional and International agreements that remain(ed) unimplemented.

These discussions included specific searches for alternatives to World Bank/IMF and FTAA type programs of adjustment and trade and included proposals for the design of development alternatives in agriculture, energy, finance, transportation and other areas.

The driving force behind this initiative was a grouping called the Hemispheric Social Alternative (HSA) which comprised civil society organizations from throughout the Western Hemishpere. In its earliest form, the proposals from this discourse emerged as “Alternatives for the Americas’ first discussed at the Peoples Summit in Santiago Chile in 1998.

The resulting document was a direct response to the thinking that “there were no alternatives to the neo-liberal economic integration” as proposed in the FTAA with support from the IFIs. the “Alternatives for the Americas” documents formed the basis of what later emerged as ALBA.

In May 2004, arising out of the broad HSA network, a civil society organization (CSO) called, “Alternative Bolivariana para las Americas” (Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean) – ALBA, was established and registered with a head office in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

On July 1, 2005 that CSO, on behalf of the Hemispheral network, filed an application to participate in OAS activities, pursuant to Article 6 of the Guidelines for Participation by Civil Society Organizations in OAS Activities. The application and supporting documents was submitted to the Permanent Council of the OAS, Committee on Inter-American Summits Management and Civil Society Participation in OAS Activities.

So far so good.

While Cuba and several other countries and organizations in the Hemishpere treated this emerging initiative of civil society, the process and the emerging documentation with respect – even hosting HSA forums – there was a less respectful attitude that manifested itself at a meeting at Mar del Plata when the Venezuelan delegation (including Mr. Chavez) tried to take over the process.

The subsequent details are hazy but from then on, what had been known as a heispheral civil society initiative started to re-emerge as an Venezuelan initiative.

There is no problem with Government adopting the work of civil society. In fact, many of us have spent a lifetime trying to get Governments to understand, accept and even take ownership of the ideas that we hold dear. The danger, as in this case, is that when once a Government has taken ownership, distortion can begin to set in and the principles, process and practice of the original work becomes unrecognizable.

In the case of ALBA, the excellent work of civil society networks for years has been adopted by 5 Governments. I cannot claim to speak for civil society in the other members of ALBA, but In the case of Dominica, I am aware that there is the perplexing anomaly of a Government signing on to an agreement that enshrines open discourse with the rest of society, while itself not sharing the details of that agreement with its people. Instead, when people ask for copies of the documents that have been signed, they are called “mischief-makers” and characterized as enemies of the Government and critics of ALBA.

When clarification is sought as regards the announcement and call by President Chavez, for the establishment of a military alliance to respond to threats from the US (definitely not a component of the civil society work leading up to the Alternatives for the Americas), there is a no official response from the Government in Roseau. No diplomatic note stating the Government’s position is issued to Caracas, to Washington DC or, to the Capitals of CARICOM.

A simple and forceful and formal denial of involvement in a military alliance would have sufficied.

The net effect is that the real substance of ALBA as the creation of the hemisphere’s civil society (a fact still not know to many) remains undisclosed and undiscussed.

This behaviour by the Dominica Government is what is in direct conflict with the very principles that are espoused in ALBA. One such principle (which is consistent with those of the OAS, Agenda 21, the Barbados Plan of Action, etc.) encourages, “…..the generation of democratic proposals involving citizen participation in areas such as socio-economic development” (from CSO – ALBA Application to the OAS, July, 1, 2005).

These types of contradictions do not escape civil society. Thankfully they also do not blunt the determination of civil society to protect and implement the principles of sustainable development that are enshrined in the principles of ALBA.

On the issue of the impact on CARICOM, I agree with Norman that ALBA presents us with another opportunity to make effective use of and not ignore, the instruments of the Regional grouping. The CRNM is not perfect but it is ours and needs to be given the chance to work for us, the EPA process notwithstanding.

Finally, this is an election year in the US. We all know that the results, one way or the other, do not promise a panacea for the countries of the Hemisphere. We all know, some (like Grenada, The DR, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela and others) more painfully than others, that like the hurricanes that hit us every year, more pain is coming from the North. This is the very reason why there must be no tinkering with the serious business of engaging all the forces of the area in efforts to mitigate and overcome the impact of the US storm that comes this November. Delays in this process out of arrogance or ignorance, will only exacerbate the danger and the damage.

The Governments of Prime Ministers’ Gonzalves and Spencer have taken a step in that direction by promising to take ALBA to their respective Parliaments. The Prime Minister of Dominica has not done so but can still, in his current capacity as Chairman of the OECS grouping, take the matter to the Meeting of the Heads of that sug-grouping and then to CARICOM asking for full and wide-ranging discourse on ALBA concluding in a Regional Forum in Dominica on November 3rd, Dominica’s 30th Anniversary of Independence and, the date, or close to it of the US Presidental Elections.

The extraordinary significance and symbolism of this would not be lost on anyone, least of all the people and Governments of the Region. The same type of Consultations that were held with the US Congress in the Caribbean in the 1980s and 90s can be held here between our Representatives on both sides of Parliament and representatives from civil society from throughout the Hemisphere. The meeting should be broadcast live to the world allowing us to project ourselves as “people who think and speak” and our Representatives to project themselves as that rare breed, “leaders who listen”.

This “spectacle of democracy” (also broadcast live to the world) would also help Dominica immensely as hundreds of our sisters and brothers would have that rare opportunity to revel in the wellnes of one of the last remaining human sanctuaries of the earth, “the Nature Island”. As a bonus, our people get to attend the only World Creole Music Festival on earth and, to see, meet, eat and share with the people who live the longest.

What more valuable gift and legacy could we share in and leave to, our children?.